






O, ..■„.» .0° ** 



+A0* 




•\ A lip / 






l^ . o« 





•- X c°* .^% X >* 














V" 



**o* 



<*<?* 






°o 




6 ^ v ^ 








PRICE 25 CENTS 



"SUBSTANTIALISM" 



THE PHILOSOPHY 



*—*-™VZ£ 035* &Ans-*—> 



A- Wilford Hall 



EXAMINED. 



SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED. I Tim. vi, 20, 



ERRATUCD. 

On page viii line 8, omit not before alike. 

Misplacing of letters, omissions, and re- 
dundances with some misspelling have been 
noticed, but are not noted here as they do 
not effect the meaning and will be readily 
seen by the reader. 

In apology for these mistakes the author 
desires to say, that an arrangement with the 
printer having been made to work on this 
when other work was not on hand, it is not 
surprising that mistakes were overlooked. 




"SHBSTwIAUSaM" 



!pe PbilosopbV 



OF— 



ft, WlkFORD Hftbk 



exa.mlHku 



p/ 



BY— 



/ 



JOHN A. GRAVIS, 



wash i xerox, n. c. »pp g jgg2 

Terry Bros., PubushekS ^^ WMHiMTg*^ -^ 

1891 )*i</-i*x 



tf$ 



Copyright 1832 by Joftn.A.Gttwa* 



PREFACE. 

A controversy was opened two years ago that cul- 
minated in a paper entitled "Snbstantialism and Gnosti- 
cism Identified." This paper was favorably noticed 
by several scholars. The little book now presented, is 
a revision of that paper, which was hektographed but 
not printed. The alterations and additions were mostly 
suggested by snbstantialist attacks upon the former 
paper, as were also the references at the bottom of the 
pages. 

Under these attacks, the idea of publishing has crys- 
talized into a determination to publish. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The worship of the true God differs from all other 
religions in being a religion of faith. All cultivated 
heathenisms, as those of China, Japan and Hindoostan, 
among the moderns, and those of Persia, Egypt, Greece 
and Rome, among the ancients, have built their re- 
ligions upon philosophical speculations. It is not a new 
thing for infidelity to claim that revelation must be 
tested by science, but any believer who admits such a 
claim is untrue to revelation. This claim was put 
forth in the apostles' days, though the attempt to actu- 
ally antagonize revelation and science was reserved for 
a#much later day. St. Paul in writing to St. Timothy, 
warnshim to "beware of science falsely so called." Com- 
mentators very generally presume that the apostle does 
not mean by "science falsely so called," science that is 
false in itself, but all science that is falsely substituted 
for faith in revelation. 

Infidelity did not endeavor to stir up science against 
revelation, until within the last few centuries. In 
early days the Gnostics would not have been ranked as 
heetics, unless they had professed a belief in Christian- 
ity. Looking at these facts, we cannot suppose that 
St. Paul's words would receive a literal interpretation, 
as some Substantialists claim. It was not because the 
Gnostic philosophies were in themselves false, that the 
early Church condemned them; for her members were at 
liberty to think as they pleased on such subjects. Their 
philosophies were not counted gnosticisms until they 



Vi INTRODUCTION. 

became parts of their religion. It would have been 
very difficult for the Church to decide whether the 
philosophy were true or false, but their making it a 
part of their creed constituted it a gnosticism. Commen- 
tators have therefore, naturally, concluded that St. Paul 
has no reference to the truth or untruth of the science 
itself when he writes of "science falsely so called." It 
is noteworthy, however, that all philosophies that have 
been by professed Christians, made part of their re- 
ligion, have been in themselves false. Thus, the false 
Ptolemaic system became a gnosticism when Pope 
Urbane compelled Galileo to retract his teaching 
against that system of astronomy. 

If there be needed any proof of the personality of the 
Evil-one, it may be found in his persistent efforts, 
throughout the whole line of history, to obscure faith 
in revelation by substituting for it something else. 
In the Jewish dispensation the law was paramount*-- 
the law, however, taught faith through the works of 
the law. When in the fullness of time, Christ came to 
fulfil the law; though the bloody sacrifices and other 
ordinances of the Levitical law were superseded by 
Christian rites, still the moral law continued — faith 
being made more plain. 

Time would fail me to point out the various efforts 
of the Evil-one to obscure faith under the old dispensa- 
tion. Suffice it to say that when our Saviour came, 
these efforts had culminated in substituting for the 
Law of God the commands of the Talmud, to which 
Christ plainly refers when he says, "Thus have ye 
made the commandments of God of none effect by 
your traditions." One aim of this evil-spirit can be 
traced throughout both dispensations — namely, to 
obscure faith. 



INTRODUCTION. Vll 

His first attempt upon Christianity was to make 
faith ridiculous, by doing away with works altogether. 
This heresy, no doubt, at one time made much disturb- 
ance in the church at Jerusalem. It received its final 
blow from St. James when he said; "Show me thy 
faith without works, and I will show thee my faith by 
my works." Next, we find the same purpose manifested 
in the various Gnosticisms, which in early days, tried 
to substitute philosophical theories for faith. By so 
doing they claimed to prove revelation, and drew away 
many of the most learned from that faith upon which 
revelation was founded. 

When Gnosticism had run its course — a few centu- 
ries later, the same purpose is seen in his efforts to cor- 
rupt the Church by making works everything — teach- 
ing that "the end justifies the means." Such a doctrine 
was not at first proclaimed; but Ave see it at work — 
little by little the errors crept in — one by one, our arch 
enemy introduced them, but with the same unwaver- 
ing object in view, to destroy faith in God and his revel- 
ation to man. After many centuries more, he over- 
stepped the bounds of discretion, and sent Tetsel forth 
to jingle his coins for indulgences. The reformers 
were aroused. Satan for a moment stood aghast, but, 
recovering himself, he joined in the cry for faith — faith 
only. He even instigated Martin L,uther to reject from 
the Inspired Canon, the truly catholic epistle of St. 
James, because it taught that "faith without works is 
dead." Thus, Satan again tried to revive his first her- 
esy; but God had reserved to himself a remnant, who 
had refused to bow the knee to either Bael or Asli- 
taroth. During the last three centuries, catholic truth 
has had to fight errors on the right hand and on the 
left. Now the doctrines of Tetzel have been aban- 



viii INTRODUCTION. 

doned; no one advocates them. The doctrine of 
"faith without works" is also practically abandoned. 

The persistant Evil-one finds himself flanked, and in 
a fit of desperation he tries to revive gnosticism; but 
the old theories are dead, he must find a new one. 
Ernest Haeckel, professor in the University of Jena, says 
that sound, light, heat, electricity, magnetisim, gravita- 
tion, life and mind, are not alike. Science and all sci- 
entists agree that they are not all alike; but Haeckel is 
professor in a German university and carries the 
weight of his university with him. Now if Satan can 
keep the teaching of science out of sight he may revive 
gnosticism on this assertion. 

Prof. Drummond a well known Christian scientist 
says, "No definition of life that has ever been given 
can be said to be even approximately correct. Its mys- 
terious qualities evade us." One of our best students 
of nature, the Rt. Rev. Bishop of Carlisle, says, "No 
definition or formula, deduced from the ordinary phe- 
nomena of life, goes nearly so deep into the mystery as 
the remarkable formula, 'ouiue viviim ex vivo' If life 
can only come from life, there must be behind life, as 
now manifested, an origin in the infinite past, of which 
we can speak only in figurative language, and which 
we may well describe as divine. The opening of the 
volume of Holy Scripture is essentially a revelation 
of life. St. John says, 'In him was life.' In the con- 
cluding chapter we read of 'a pure river of water of 
life', of the 'tree of life,' and of the book of life. Man 
continues the bishop, 'is the connecting link between 
the two extremities'; life as manifested in him has 
something in common with grass and creeping things, 
something also in common with those higher intelli- 
gences," 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

For more than two hundred years a large school of 
philosophers have tried to prove the spontaneous gen- 
eration of life. The doctrine was recently revived by 
H. C. Bastian, M. D., F. R. S.,who says, "Both observa- 
tion and experiment unmistakably testify to the fact 
that living matter is constantly being formed, de novo." 

Mr. Dallenger, F. R. S., found that many animal 
germs survive a higher temperature than Dr. Bastian 
had supposed; indeed that the life in some germs could 
hardly be destroyed. Prof. Tyudall, after numerous 
further tests, says, "I affirm that no trustworthy exper- 
imental testimony exists to prove that life in our day, 
has ever appeared independently of antecedent life." 
Prof. Huxley follows with this remark, "The doctrine 
of the biogenesis of life, only from life, is victorious 
along the whole line." 

Haeckel probably made his assertion before Tyndall 
and Huxley made theirs; had he seen the assertions 
of these gentlemen, he could not have had the audacity 
to say that "life and mind, are just like his other so 
called, forces of nature. "The father of lies", however, 
sees that in this assertion of Haeckel's there is a chance 
to renew his attack upon faith, and a lie to him has a 
peculiar charm; true science, he knows, is always on 
the side of revelation. He also knows that there is no 
need to deceive infidels. They have already deceived 
themselves; but perhaps, he may turn some Christians 
away from faith and make them trust in something else 
beside revelation. He therefore sugarcoats the false- 
hood, and turns it over to Dr. A. Wilford Hall, who at 
once accepts it, and brings forward his new gnostic theory 
of substantialism to combat Haeckel's minor premise, 
that "all the forces of nature, except life and mind, 
are proved to be only vibrations in matter." This second 



X INTRODUCTION. 

falsehood needed no refutation. Scientists are uni- 
versal in denying his major premise, and not a few deny this 
also. If both were admitted, the conclusion would only 
be a probability. 

*"The leading principle in substantialism is, that 
motion is absolutely nothing, being the mere change 
in the position of matter in space, while that which 
causes motion, of a necessity, is a veritable substantial 
entity r In this their philosophy advocates nothing 
that is not already established by science. Their error 
is in assuming that what Haeckel enumerates as forces, 
are primary forces, instead of being as they undoubtedly 
are, the results of other forces. No one disputes but 
what, if they be the primary cause of motion they must 
be entities. This argument has been well used in proof 
that the mind of man must be a substantial entity ', because 
it moves matter as a primary agent. For the same 
reason, some, who are not substantialists, have thought 
that every animal life must be an immaterial substan- 
tial entity; but can any such argument be educed for 
sound, light, heat, electricity, magnetism or gravitation? 
It is not difficult to show that none of these, so called 
forces are primary, that they are all produced by some- 
thing else. No wonder that Solomon, the scientific 
king of Israel, exclaimed, "Who knoweth the spirit of 
man that goeth upward and the spirit of the beast that 
goeth downward to the earth !" Revelation was silent 
and science threw but a dim light upon the subject. 
A substantialist said to the author, "There is no proof 
in the Bible that the soul of man is immaterial." In- 
stead of substantialism supporting revelation, this zeal- 
ous champion tries to make the Bible support substan- 
tialism. He cannot mean that the Bible leaves the 



* Scientific Arena Vol. I, pagers, quoted in text book on sound p. 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

soul of man a nonentity, for then Christ would have 
died to save a nonentity; the Jewish and Christian 
churches were both established to save nonentities, the 
spirits of Samuel, Divies and Lazarus were nonentities, 
and Christ's "preaching to the spirits in prison," was a 
fiction. He must therefore mean that the Bible teaches 
no difference between material and ////-material entities; 
but what do we mean by ////-material entities, if not 
such entities as are not subject to the laws that govern mat- 
ter/ Is not the soul of man represented in the Bible as 
just such an entity? Is not the spiritual body so rep- 
resented ? When Christ had risen from the tomb with 
a spiritual body do we not find that body passing 
through doors that were locked and bolted ? Before the 
crucifiction, when his body was a natural body, we see 
nothing of his ignoring the laws that govern matter, 
but this zealous advocate of substantialism has gone 
beyond his principal, for Dr. Hall says,* "The personal 
existence of the soul, separate from the material body , 
can only be assumed or maintained, on the supposition 
that the mental and spiritual part of man is a substan- 
tial entity. The only view practicable to harmonize 
the resurrection of the material body, as taught in I 
Cor. XV, is its change to immateriality, thus making 
a spiritual body by abrogating its material corruptabil- 
ity and carnal properties." Dr. Hall certainly does 
argue well when not fairly mounted upon his gnostic 
hobby of substantialism. 

There is, however, a difference between the imma- 
terial spirit and the spiritual body. Christ says after his 
resurrection, "Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones as ye see me have;" and he ate before 
them to prove that he was not a spirit. The point has 

* Microcosm Vol .'VII, page 39, columu 2, Hue 12. 



Xll INTRODUCTION. 

been well taken, that the spiritual body is not imma- 
terial, in the same sense, at least as the spirit. Some have 
thought that the spiritual body of our Saviour did not go 
through the doors that were locked and bolted ; but that 
the doors miraculously opened, just as the doors of the 
prison did on another occasion for St. Peter and the 
angel. 

It is a law of error, that the farther it departs from 
apostolic teaching, or the demonstrated facts of science, 
the more do its votaries worship their leader, and the 
more arrogantly do they put forward his assumptions. 
It has always been thus with gnosticism. If we look 
over the history of the first three centuries we will see 
it. Leaving the anchors, distorts the mental vision. 
The cause of this phenomenon seems manifest. So 
long as people rely upon demonstrated truths they feel 
secure of their position; and being in search of truth, 
they are willing to have their theories, if nescessary, 
overturned. So long as they rely upon apostolic teach- 
ing they hold fast to promises that cannot fail, but 
when they leave these anchors for the lucubrations of 
philosophers, they become fierce and intolerant and 
make demands upon our faith that are never made by 
either religion or science. 

From the beginning to the end, "the Bible is full of 
the evidences of the immaterial substantiality of the soul of 
man. Dr. Hall shows that the Bible does contain such 
evidence; but he does not attempt to show, nor could 
he show, that it contains any evidence whatever of the 
constitution of sound, light, heat, electricity, magne- 
tism or gravitation ; nor any evidence of the constitu- 
tion of the life of the beast ; so long, however, as meta- 
physicians do not make their theories parts of their re- 



INTRODUCTION. Xlll 

ligion, they keep within the province of philosophical 
speculation. 

At the end of our last quotation, Dr. A. Wilford Hall 
asks this question: * "Is it not reasonable to assume 
that Infinite Intelligence, by calling to His aid other 
natural laws and forces, can destroy the properties of 
matter, and that He can substitute properties adapted 
only to im-material conditions?" Of course "it is reas- 
onable" to assume "that Infinite Intelligence can" do 
whatever He pleases; but where is the evidence that 
Infinite Intelligence has done so with regard to light, 
heat, electricity, magnetism, gravitation or sound? 



* Microcosm Vol. VII., page 39, column 2, line 3. 



d^KKJJ. 



Dr. A. Wilford Hall has formulated a * creed for his 
followers. Scientists, being seekers after truth in 
nature, and expecting to find out the same by deduc- 
tions or inductions have no creeds. Philosophers have 
theories that are nearly the same. The theories of 
scientists are only working theories, to be abandoned if 
not proved. Religions have creeds, assumed by all wor- 
shippers of the true God, to be based upon revelation. 
The substantialist creed is too long and uninteresting 
to quote' but he has given us a f synopsis that may be 
quoted. Here it is. "The name Substantialism appro- 
priately signifies, as the Substantial Philosophy teaches, 
that everything in the universe, of which the intellect 
can form a positive concept, is a real, entitive or sub- 
stantial existence, whether such entity be material or 
im-material — whether it shall be subject to sensuous 
observation, or its existence can only be determined by 
the mental process of reasoning from cause to effect. 
Hence, that every form of physical, vital, mental or 
spiritual force in the universe, whose effect is in any 
degree the subject of our observation or shall come 
within the grasp of our reasoning powers, must be sub- 
stantial; and not having the recognized properties of 
matter, and not being subject to material conditions, 
these forces must, therefore, properly and necessarily 
be regarded as immaterial substances." As we propose 



* Scientific Arena, Vol. i pp. 6 and 21. 
■(•Scientific Arena, Vol. 1 p, 1, verse 4. 



1 6 SUBSTANTIA USM. 

to show that these, so called forces, arc subject to material 
conditions, we call attention to this assertion, that 
they are not. Indeed, if they be i in-material entities, 
as is here asserted, they cannot be subject to the laws 
governing matter; for it is just this difference which 
points out to us one as im-material and the other as 
matter. 

This creed, like most substantialist writings, and in- 
deed like most gnostic writings, is largely taken up 
with a glorification of those Christians, who have sense 
enough to see through and accept their theory. The 
ancient brethren did not hesitate to proclaim that "they 
were the scientific Christians." The substantialist 
creed is very well illustrated by one of their own writ- 
ers in the Scientific Arena. -""Gravitation in physics" 
says this writer, "bears some resemblance to principle 
morals. They are alike, invisible, both work noise- 
lessly, work all the time, are never caught asleep. 
Both move material bodies and both are inherent in 
the organization of their respective hemispheres. 
Now while we are not ready to say that these princi- 
ples are entitive substances, I think that we are pre- 
pared to say that they are not mere inanities. They are 
each somethino- or nothing".'' 

The ancient gnostics asserted that the attributes oi 
the Deity are entities, but this writer goes further and 
thinks that all attributes are entities, for lie goes on 
to to say, f"We see no reason therefore, why a mother's 
love should not be listed with all the other substantial 
existences." Reason is a thing and conscience is an 
entitative substantial reality." In commenting on this 
article, the editor says, "The mine o[ truth here pre- 
empted by Elder Munnell seems to us to conceal 
* Vol. i , page to, col 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 1 7 

untold wealth; though as he admits it, lies within the 
legitimate territory of Substantialism" 

The * Microcosm says, "But what becomes of the 
light, the sound, the electricity, the magnetism or any 
other peculiar form of force thus generated, after 
serving the purpose thus designed in Nature, or after 
ceasing to manifest itself? It falls back from its defi- 
nite into the same indefinite force element or reservoir 
from which it was evolved by the process appointed 
in nature ; and thus only can the law of the conserva- 
tion of the forces be true." Is this not pantheism? 
But let us go on. "Thus also, the founder of this Sub- 
stantial Philosophy teaches in his Problem of Human 
Life, the vital and mental force of the lower animals, 
at death, falls back into the universal fountain of life 
and mentality, from which all substantial life and mind 
must have originally come, and which reaches back to 
God." Here wc certainly have pantheism, — naked, bald 
pantheism! f Can it be possible that the vagaries 
of ancient philosophers find advocates in the nineteenth 
century? — and yet it is the only goal at which Substan- 
tialism can arrive. This article goes on to insist that 
the father of substantialism has the same right to put 
forth his philosophy, that others have to put forth their 
theory of material luininiferous ether." It claims that 
" substantial philosophy explains more than ether ex- 
plains." It instances "the flint and steel, which when 
struck, produce light, heat and sound;" all 
which, it says, "were there before, and are only liber- 
ated by the blow." But light, heat and sound, according 
to substantialism, are im-material substantial entities, and 
Dr. Hall tells us that "By im-material substantial 

; Vol. Ill, pa^'e 307, quoted iu Text Book on Sound page 1 05 . 

t Art. 14 of Creed, Inst sentence and Scientific Arena Vol. I page 21. 



1 8 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

entities are meant such entities as are not limited or 
confined by material conditions." Are not the flint 
and steel -'material conditions," that "confine" these 
entities? 

The * Scientific Arena tells us that " substantiaUsm 
has 25,000 adherants, and that nothing can stop its 
onward march." So thought the ancient Gnostics, but 
where are they? They numbered many — more than 
substantiaUsm can count, and gloried in the assertion 
that "they were the intellectual Christians." 

Science says that "material force lias in it two elements 
namely, a material entity and the velocity of that entity." 
The cannon ball is an entity, but exerts no force while 
lying still; but when velocity is given to it, we have a 
powerful force. Velocity itself, deduction proves, is 
composed of two elements, space passed over, and the 
time occupied in passing over said space; but it is suf- 
ficient for our purpose to consider force as composed of 
two elements, one of these elements being proved to be 
a compound element. Let us suppose that the propelling 
energy which gives force to the cannon ball is a spring, 
then that which imparts the energy is also an entity. 
The force depends upon the weight of the ball and the 
velocity imparted by the material spring. The velocity 
depends upon the elasticity of the spring. We may 
define elasticity, but with our definition we must stop — 
we cannot tell what elasticity is. There is, as we all 
know, another mode of propelling cannon balls, namely 
by the elasticity of the gases produced by burning 
gun powder; but here again, we see that the elasticity 
is inherant in a material substantial entity —we see that 
elasticity is a property of matter — not indeed of all 



S< i( Qtific Arc 11a Vol. I . page \i first col. next to last verse. 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 1 9 

matter. A Substantialist says, that this, and all proper- 
ties of matter are im-material substantial entities, but lov- 
ers of science ask for some proof. Snbstantialists start 
out by ignoring all material forces; and, against evi- 
dence, assert that force is, in itself an im-material sub- 
stantial entity. Whatever snbstantialists cannot 
explain, they satisfy themselves by calling it an im-ma- 
terial entity. It was a common saying with the 
ancients that "much learning made a man mad". 
Learning never makes a man mad, biit trying to find 
out what is unknowable does. It has, in all ages, 
driven philosophers into vagaries. We readily concede 
that life and mind are immaterial substantial entities, and 
we will unite with Dr. Hall in demanding of Prof. Ernst 
Haeckel proof to the contrary, for we can show proof 
that these two forces are entities. Who can define the 
mind ? Of itself, as a primary agent, it exerts force 
through the nerves upon the muscles, and produces 
action. 

Substantialism goes beyond the teaching of Science, 
when it asserts that sound, light, heat, electricity, mag- 
netism and gravitation, about none of which it can 
show primary action, are also im-material substantial 
entities. Has it revelation to sustain such an assertion ? 
If so we will listen to it. Human teaching can not be 
accepted unless it rests upon some source of knowledge 
and we can find only three sources; the observations of 
our senses, reasoning upon the observation of our 
senses, and divine teaching. The first- source of knowl- 
edge we call experience, the second, demonstration; these 
both belong to science. The third source we call rev 
elation. What have we in the philosophies of Professor 
Ernst Haeckel and Dr. A. Wilford Hall except their 
naked assertions to oppose to all our experience of 



20 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

what they write about? Still anybody who does not 
accept the guess of substantialism, is "quibbling" or is 
an "ignoramus." Perhaps they would do better if they 
would "quibble" a little more, before putting forth 
their improved theories. The * Scientific Arena in 
likening Snbstantialism to "the little stone cut out of 
the mountain without hands," is, to say the least, very 
irreverent. 

The problem of human life, will, no doubt, seem to 
the reader a treatise on sound. He will, however, dis- 
cover that the problem to be solved is this — What is 
Human Life ? For over eighteen centuries Christians 
have solved this problem by referring to Revelation. 
The Jews solved it long before in the same way; but 
gnostics have always thought that it could be solved 
better by their philosophies. If the reader is looking 
through substautialist writings for arguments, he will 
often stop and ask, "What does all this rhetoric, arrog- 
ance and egotism amount to? He will feel relieved, if 
some one who has had the patience to plod through 
this mass of verbage will cull out here and there, what 
has the semblance of an argument. W T e have tried to 
do so; and some arguments that we think worth 
answering we will try to answer. 

The author of the Problem of Human Life tells us 
that after this book was published, * "Others waited to 
see what Tindall, Helmholts and Mayer, the represent- 
ative authorities on sound, both in this country and 
Europe, would say to this startling assault upon so 
long established and universally accepted a theory of 
science. . Put these great authorities, after having seen 
.-Hid read the. book, called it 'funny and forever after 

Vol. i, page 12, verse 3. 
: ' Scientific Arena. Vol [, p i Verse7,COl. 2 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 21 

held their peace!" Reader! perhaps you would lay 
down the problem of human life, and all other sub- 
stantialist writings with the same remark. We are not 
surprised that they laughed at it. Certainly no scientist, 
regarding the book only from a scientific point of 
view, would consider it worth answering; but when 
an attempt is made to connect its teaching with Revela- 
tion, Christians feel the ludicrous position in which it 
puts their religion before scientific men, and are con- 
strained to speak in defense of their faith. 

The Bncycloyedia Britannica, after saying that "St. 
Paul's cautions are presumed to refer to the Gnostics," 
uses these words: "It seems plainly against such ten- 
dencies, rather than against any special sects or schools, 
that the cautions of St. Paul are directed." Appeltou's 
Cyclopedia says, "Gnosticism was the earliest attempt 
to construct a philosophical system of faith. ' ' Shaff says, 
"They were the first rationalists. They endeavored to 
harmonize Revelation and reason— They argued from 
effect to cause — The principal task which Gnosticism 
proposed for itself, was to lead men by speculative 
knowledge to salvation." How precisely some of these 
remarks apply so • siibstantialism! The following 
remark by Dr. William Smith seems made for siibstau- 
tialism. He says, "They make the attributes 'of the 
Deity distinct entities." Substantialists go farther. 
They make all attributes human or divine "distinct enti- 
ties." Dr. Smith also says that "St. Paul wrote of the 
Gnostics, when he wrote to St. Timothy of "Science 
falsely so called" and of the Talmud when he wrote of 
"old wives' fables." 

• It has been asserted that *St. Paul was a Substan- 
tialist. Dr. Adam Clark says, "The Gnostics claimed 

* Scientific Arena, Vol I, page 23, lop of 1st col. 



2 2 SUBSTANTIA I, ISM. 

that they taught the doctrines of the apostles." Dr. 
William Smith says, "They did profess to 
be able to trace their doctrines to the apos- 
tles." Both these authors must refer to Gnostics, who 
lived after the apostles, perhaps three centuries later, 
for those who lived during the days of the apostles 
could hardly have dared to make such assertions. 
Nevertheless, these authors, both show that the Sub- 
stantialists are not original in this claim; for they are 
only reiterating what the ancient Gnostics asserted. 






SUBSTANTIAUSM. 



The theories that have been advanced to account for 
the forces of nature are; first the Materialistic or Corpus- 
cular, which has never been applied to sound; second, 
the im-matcrial substantial theory of Dr. A. Wilford 
Hall; third the Wave Theory, which was advanced five 
hundred years before our era; but which would never 
account for light, without imaginary ether — Haeckel's 
arrogance does not permit him to see that the theory 
of ether has always met with opposition, or he could 
not have asserted his first premise. 

Fourth the Impulse Theory, a modification of the last. 
If we lay two long gutters upon a perfectly level table 

fill one with croquet or any other balls, and put in 

the other gutter only one ball, at the end where a 
spring has been so arranged as to strike both gutters 
at once, with the same energy; then draw back this 
spring and allow it to strike both at once; namely, the 
single ball at the end of one gutter, and the end of 
the row of balls in the full gutter, we see an excellent 
illustration of the impulse theory. The ball at the far 
end of the full gutter jumps out immediately, without 
any perceptable motion in the other balls of the row; 
while the single ball in the other gutter takes time 
to roll the length of its gutter, and perhaps stops before 
it gets there. In the case of the full gutter, the im- 
pulse is communicated from ball to ball, and is seen 
acting only on the last of the row, with no percepti- 



24 SUBvSTANTIALISM. 

ble diminution of energy nor any consumption of time. 

Tyndall tried this experiment, and put springs in 
place of each alternate ball, also put an upright near 
each end of the full gutter, thus pressing the balls and 
springs together. He made a hole in each upright 
through which the end ball projected, each end ball 
touching through these holes, another free ball outside 
the upright. He also fastened the uprights by a rod 
from the tops of each, this rod passing through a ring 
on the top of every ball. The balls in the row, he 
thus made more immovable; but when struck by the 
spring the result was the same — no movement could 
be detected between the uprights, in either springs 
or balls. Prof. Tyndall 's experiment was made in 1870. 
The problem of human life was copyrighted in 1877, 
and yet we have been unable to find any reference to 
the Impulse Theory in any substantialist writings. 

The materialistic theory has been abandoned by all 
scientists, and has never been revived by any one. 
Light, which has no perceptable weight, passes as 
well through the air, which has considerable weight, 
as through a vacuum. This ought not to be, if light be 
matter, for a heavier substance always stops one of less 
weight. The other theories, not having been aban- 
doned, we will consider them 

A distinction should always be made between scien- 
tific facts and philosophical theories. The one has been 
demonstrated, the other has not. Newton demon- 
strated the law of universal gravitation, from the 
acknowledged facts of terrestrial gravitation, the discov- 
ered motions of the planets, and the already demon- 
of falling bodies The conception of ether 
Philosophical theory, not a proved fact. It is a work- 
ing theory. It has never been demonstrated, but it 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 25 

serves to explain some phenomena connected with 
these so called forces of nature. 

Of Immaterial Substantialism, science knows noth- 
ing-. All that we do know about it is derived from 
revelation. There are very few deductions or induc- 
tions, that throw any light upon the subject. What 
we know of immaterial substantiality has been re- 
ceived upon faith — faith, supported indeed by such 

• 
proofs of the truth of the Bible, as would convince any 

impartial examiner. Immateriality is so contrary to 
our experience that it would never have been con- 
ceived, as an explanation of the forces of nature had it 
not been found in the Bible. There it shows the con- 
dition of the spirit, and perhaps of the spiritual body 
also. Having obtained the idea from thence, Substan- 
tialism goes round the circle with the vain expectation 
of proving Revelation by its theory about the forces 
of nature. Perhaps it was also helped by those meta- 
physicians, who with Solomon, have concluded that the 
beasts are endowed with im-material entitive spirits as 
well as man. Solomon, however, confesses his ignor- 
ance about the immortality of such spirits ; but sub- 
stantialists are quite certain that they are immortal, 
albeit that such immortality is pantheistic; and that all 
the forces of nature, inanimate though they be, have 
the same kind of immortality. 

Man, no doubt, has an intuitive idea of his own im- 
mortality — we read it in the dreamy philosophies of the 
ancients, and see it in the religions of the heathen of 
our own day. Accompanying such ideas, there is some 
idea of an immortal soul; but how different are the un- 
proved theories of the wisest of philosophers, from the 
bright light of revelation. The demand which philos 
ophy makes upon faith is far greater than that asked 



20 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

by revelation. Philosophy gave to Cicero a faith in 
the immortality of the soul, but how he broke down at 
the death of his daughter, and grieved for his darling 
with a very indefinite hope of ever seeing her again. 

Every entity must either be created or produced 
from what has been created. This is so self evident 
that it requires no proof. To create is an act of the 
Deity. Dr. Hall sees this and speaks of the forces as 
being liberated. Light and heat are always produced 
from entities, and the substances from which they are 
produced, are consumed in the production; we can 
easily conceive of their being entities, which may be 
liberated hy the union of oxygen and carbon-such lib- 
erations are well known to the chemist. But when 
yon strike the bell, is anything consumed in liberating 
-and: Do we consume anything when we speak? 
We force the air over the vocal cords, and fashion the 
sounds into words by the palate, tongue, teeth and lips. 
I he air passes out of the mouth and all these organs 
remain the same. If these forces are entities, the con- 
servation of energy does not explain what becomes of 

Dr. Hal, telIs ^ . ^ ^^ ^ 

agamst the annihilation of any substantial entity" 
H "conclusion here is correct, but we cannot receive 

:•;;;•; ^'-- Uicory to account for what becomes o 
"" forces, uukss he can show that he has a revelation 
to support ,t. Substantialism, at the most is onlv 

KSj ^^7' not ad —--d n :i; s tifi o c n t t a 

Nwuui ux. Hall admits that reveliHnn 
*£? : 11 ""' 1 '~W substantialities £112 
"" — , entities are not subject to M, 

•■ Vol VII ; 



>^e 10. 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 2J 

laws that govern matter." Spirits and spiritual bodies 
he says ignore matter. Which of his other forces 
ignores the laws that govern matter? Try to get elec- 
tricity through glass or heat through asbestos ! Sound 
is stopped by anything that is unstable, as cushions or 
curtains ; and the materials that stop the passage of 
light are too numerous to mention. With regard to 
some of these forces, the observed phenomena are in- 
compatible with every theory that has been broached. 

Looking at a bright spot renders the retina insensi- 
ble for a time. If we then turn the eye suddenly upon 
a white surface we see a dark spot where the light 
spot fell upon the retina. If instead of a white spot, 
a colored spot fell upon the retina, we see the comple- 
ment of that color upon the white surface. Now, if 
the difference in color be caused by a difference in the 
vibration of the rays of light, ought not the rapid rays 
to entirely obscure the less rapid? We do not so find 
it. If the eye had rested upon a red spot we see a 
green spot on the white surface, but if the spot on 
which the eye had rested were green we see a red spot. 
According to the ether theory one of these colors must 
have been made by more rapid vibrations or impulses 
than the other. Again light passes readily through 
the atmosphere, but should not the waves of light, in 
such an inconceivably light substance as ether, be 
stopped by the much heavier atmosphere. Does not a 
heavy matter always stop motion in a lighter matter ? 
We must confess here that the action of impulses are 
not yet understood, but all these phenomena seem op- 
posed to the theory of ether. 

On the other side of the argument, if light be, as 
substantialists claim, an nil-material substantial en- 
tity, how can it be shut out by blinds and curtains and 



28 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

many other kinds of matter? Perhaps we are " quib- 
bling", but substantialists would do well to "quibble" 
more. If they did, they would be more like 
scientists. They would see that what they call an im- 
material substance is here controlled by matter. 

A smart blow on the back of the head causes us to 
see stars. Can substantialism explain this phenome- 
non? The vibratory and impulse theories both ex- 
plain it. Surgeons know that the optic nerve shows 
none of the sensitiveness to pain of the nerves of feel- 
ing — in short the optic nerve is entirely insensible to 
anything but light ; just as the auditory nerves are in- 
sensible to anything but sounds. The one nerve con- 
verts jars into sounds and the other nerve converts 
jars into light. These facts are strong points for the 
impulse theory of light. They are certainly not in 
accord with the substantial theory. 

Dr. Hall says, correctly, that ^'im-materialentitiesare 
not subject to the laws governing matter "; but an awn- 
ing or umbrella shades us from the heat of the sun, 
and the walls and windows of a house keep in artificial 
heat. Is not heat, here "subject to the laws governing 
matter"? Can matter impede what is im-material? 
Dr. Hall says that it cannot. Revelation says amen, 
and science is silent on the subject. I confess that I 
do not know what light and heat are. 

Electricity can be conducted, but can matter conduct 
what is ////-material? The conductor must confine the 
electricity to itself; but "can matter confine an ////-ma- 
il substantial entity?" Dr. Hall says it cannot. 
tricitj and magnetism can be converted into each 
other. Can an entity be changed into another entity? 
[s n«>t such a change an act of creation? The chemist 

otific Arena Vol I iuoted in Sound Book, page viii. 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 29 

appears to do this miracle, but he only liberates ele- 
ments from the union in which he finds them that he 
may, with these elements form new compounds. 

The fact that magnetism can be increased by rub- 
ing, looks like motion among the particles of the mag 
net ; it certainly does not look as though magnetism 
were an entity. Faraday, who devoted years to the 
study of this subject, and tried to find out what elec- 
tricity and magnetism are, was compelled to confess 
himself an "ignoramus". Haeckel, however knows 
that they are both caused by vibrations; and snbstan- 
tialists know that they are im-matcrial substantial enti- 
ties. 

Ernst Haeckel and A. Wilford Hall, both omit from 
their list of forces odor and flavor. It seemed wise to 
do so, as these are admitted to be not only entities, but 
material entities. Dr. A. Wilford Hall, however, in 
the Scientific Arena says, * "Odor is that force in 
nature, which by entering the nose and coming in con- 
tact with the olfactory nerve, produces in our concious- 
ness the sensation of smell; and flavor is that force in 
nature, which by contact with the palate and gusta- 
tory nerve produces in our consciousness, the sensation 
taste." Observe here, that unless the substance comes 
in contact with the nerves no sensation is produced. 
Should we compress the material nostrils by the ma 
terial fingers we exclude odor. How can matter ex- 
clude what is im-material ? Dr. Hall tells us correctly 
that "By im-material substances are meant such enti- 
ties as arc not limited or confined by material condi- 
tions." 

No doubt but what scientists in their enthusiastic 
efforts to account for what is unaccountable, have also 

* Vol. I page 73, also quoted in Text Book on Sound, page 157. 



30 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

sometimes asserted working theories as though they 
were demonstrated scientific facts; but such assertions 
are errors wherever we find them. 

If A. Wilford Hall would drop Substantialism, and 
devote his energies to the publication of a Christian 
Scientific Journal, he need not then make himself a 
laughing-stock to scientific men, by trying to build up 
his reputation with an endeavor to show that * Sir 
Isaac Newton was wrong about the earth's attraction 
upon the moon ; a calculation that has since been repeat- 
edly verified and which any mathematician can test 
for himself. 

Science deals with proved facts and with working 
theories. Philosophy deals with theories and specula- 
tions ; if these speculations concern the mind and the 
soul they are metaphysical. Revelation deals with 
what (rod has revealed. These branches of knowl- 
edge will not clash unless they are made to clash. 
Evolution, sound, light, etc., concern science and 
philosophy, not religion. They are . all subjects 
that arc more or less unsettled, and perhaps 
never will be settled. About the descent of man and 
other animals, one scientist yet contradicts another. 
In the front rank of biologists, stand the names of 
I .mi is Agassi/ and St, George Mivart. I need not tell 
any American, who lays claim to scientific knowledge, 
how Agassi/., to the day Of his death, fought against 
the development taught by Darwin and Spencer. 
Faugh t, not on religious but on philosophical grounds, 
lu the Nineteenth Century, Mivart says, "the question 
oi man's origin is a philosophical, not a scientific ques- 
tion." He further says "that the more deeply 
and thoroughly human nature is studied, the more 

Microcosms foi March and fuly 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 3 1 

clear and decisive will be the conviction arrived at, that 
the powers of mental abstraction, and of language 
which is its external sign, mark the most interesting 
and impassable limit to evolution." 

Darwin, who was himself a tlicist, admits that the 
boundaries between the species are as distinctly marked 
in the rocks of by-gone epochs, as biologists find them 
now ; and that "if species have descended by almost 
insensibly fine gradations, as he claims that they did, 
then it would seem necessary for us to expect the 
rocks to reveal inuumeral transitional forms; but lie 
says that the geological records are fragmentary. 
Other scientists have answered him that these frag- 
ments are counted by the thousands, are gathered from 
every part of the earth and from every epoch ; and 
surely some connecting links would be found in the 
rocks , but the testimony of the rocks is, rather that 
the earthliest periods give the most perfect types of 
each dynasty. Few that have paid any attention to 
geology will gainsay the facts here given. 

It matters not whether the creation was in six days 
or in longer periods; whether it was immediate or 
was slowly developed. Whichever way, science de- 
cides the Bible teaches that it was of God. 
Of course the ideas which the uneducated form of 
God and his works, differ from the ideas of the edu- 
cated ; but the Bible was written for botli — the unedu- 
cated as well as the educated ; and it is wonderful that 
when rightly interpreted, it does not clash with cither. 
The notions of theologians are no part of the Bible. 
Hebrew scholars are agreed that the word which our 
version translates day, would be just as correctly ren- 
dered period. 

Geologists aeree that the earth, was at first, "without 



32 SUBSTANTIA LISM. 

form and void" and that it was afterwards covered 
with water and wrapped in an impenetrable darkness. 
True, they do not say with Moses that "the Spirit of 
God moved upon the face of the waters"; but how did 
Moses know what he says preceded and followed this 
assertion. All which he gives just in the order which 
ideologists record. The firmament, which always means 
the atmosphere, is mentioned just where the develop- 
ment of nature puts it. All scientists agree that the 
heavy atmosphere, composed mainly of carbonic acid 
gas, bore up the mists from off the sea, and formed 
dense clouds on the top of this atmosphere, thus, div- 
iding the waters that were under the firmament from the 
waters that were adore the firmament." Does not the 
telescope show us that Jupiter and Saturn are in this 
same condition now? When the luxuriant vegetation 
of the Carboniferous Age had exhausted this carbonic 
acid gas, the clouds fell in copious rains, and the sun, 
moon and stars appeared, just as every scientist knows 
that they did ; and, just as Moses, in language that ac- 
cords with his visions, said that they did. 







ANALi< ■ ■) 

Dr. A. Wilford Ha] bout im-materiality, * '.'It 

.is best illusti • rn or gravitation which 

v. ; a materia • . regress." 

ne tism. pass through a 
vacuum to gi body > true, and they 

. ■■ - not see 

that : • trence be- 

tween tli forces, - troy his 

much va grav- 

itation and i • - u ' ir'd the laws that govern 

matter; a •'• . idou do, if they be. imma- 

terial entities • i the fact that 

the other • ws ; and thus 

demoli ;he< • ibstantiaiism. 

He truly says tl very thing 

aring him in the 
* published a> ientists; 

he with • : ■< ( perfect a what 

they both call th 

It would 1 ■ ' no anal- 

ogy app • • • from 

Liiiuera] imal kingdom ; and 

Lind. Let us 
exan tl 

with m; . liiere 

no ana! e? rom a mere germ ; 

Scii 



34 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

each springs from a similar life ; both develope gradu- 
ally ; in each the embryo bears no resemblance to the 
adult. Here are four analogies where but few could be 
expected ; as we advance in the species, the analogies 
become more numerous. Between man and the bi- 
valve, we will find more — still more between man and 
the crustacean — much more between man and the ver- 
tebrates; while, between man and the highest type of 
the mammales, the analogies become innumerable. 
Thinkers in logic, seeing that few things can be se- 
lected where analogies are not found, have long ago 
decided that analogies prove nothing unless the. analo- 
gies are complete, or at least unbroken. 

The system of development is founded upon these anal- 
ogies. It is admitted, however, that the analogies were 
incomplete ; though it is said that they had never been 
broken. Dallenger, Tyndall and Huxley, in their re- 
marks upon biogenesis, which we have quoted, show 
that these analogies are not only incomplete but 
broken ; while Mivart in his remarks upon the lines of 
difference between the species of animals, proves that 
they are worthless. 

Ernst Haeckel finds analogies, not only where none 
exist, but where eminent agnostics have reluctantly 
confessed that they could find none. .Certainly but 
lew selections could be made, where more broken an- 
alogies appear, than between life, mind, sound, light, 
Ileal, electricity, magnetism and gravitation. In this 
is Haeckel's greatest fallacy; and upon this fallacy Dr. 
A. Wilford Hall builds his substantialism. Analogies 
are a hobby with Materialists and'Subztantialists: 

Where, I would ask, is there any analogy between the 
personal immortality of the soul as taught by revela- 
tion, and the pantheistic immortality of sound, light, 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 3 5 

heat, electricity, magnetism and*gravitation as taught 
by substantialism} but no other immortality can well 
be advanced for these so called forces of nature. The 
life of the beast, Substantialism says is pantheistically 
immortal also, yet it finds analogy between such life 
and the soul of man. Was not Solomon's doubt more 
logical? •• 

Most philosophers have seen such a difference be- 
tween life or mind and Haeckel's other forces, that they 
have not tried to put them in one class. "I affirm," 
says Prof. Tyndall, "that no shred or trustworthy testi- 
mony exists, to prove that life in our day has ever ap- 
peared independent of antecedent life ; and Prof. Hux- 
ley says, "Biogenesis is triumphant along the whole 
line." Aye! triumphant in its proof that life, both 
vegetable and animal, is never developed, not even by 
the most scientific methods of modern chemistry, but 
always comes from a similar life. Ernst Haeckel and 
A. Wilford Hall are not scientists. They may be f phil- 
osophers ; but a scientist is one who is seeking for 
truth, and when he finds it, he does not contradict it 
because it accords not with his preconceived ideas — 
his pet theory. In the face of universal testimony, to 
the contrary, Haeckel declares that all of what he calls 
the forces of nature are alike ; and Dr. A. Wilford Hall 
accepts this assertion and brings forward his theory of 
Substantialism to combat Haeckel's other reckless asser- 
tion, that six of these forces are proved to be vibra- 
tions. 

Leaving out life and mind, let us see what analogy we 
can find between the others. In producing light — no! 

■■■ Eccles., Chapter III, verse 21. 

t The word philosopher is used here with a meaning that has been attached 
to it for the last 2,000 years. If we confine ourselves to the etymology ot the 
word, it is no more applicable to these men, than scientist. 



36 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

we will ?ise the substantialist word — in "liberating" light' 
heat and galvanic electricity something must be con- 
sumed, but in liberating sound nothing is consumed. 
Gravitation, which is constantly being liberated by 
every particle of matter consumes nothing. Sound 
will not pass through a vacuum, it must have a material 
conductor; but light passes as well through a vac- 
uum as through the air. If light has any conductor it 
must be that imaginary ether. Glass does not impede 
light of any kind, nor does it impede the heat of the 
sun, but it is almost a perfect barrier to artificial heat, 
and to sound. Do Haeckel and Wilford Hall not see 
anything here to break the analogy between their forces? 
Aye ! even between the same force when it pro- 
ceeds from different sources? This phenomenon of 
heat, science has never explained. Can substantialism 
explain it? Iyight, to the unaided eye, appears the 
same no matter from what it comes ; but the spectro- 
scope shows that there is quite a difference. That 
lights are by no means homogeneous from burning 
gas, burning liquid, burning solids and the sun; but 
these philosophers say that there is analogy between 
them all. 

Glass will not permit electricity to pass readily through 
it, but glass offers very little resistence to magnetism 
or gravitation, very little to light or the heat of the 
sun. Is there analogy between all these so called forces? 

We can store light and heat. In the Leyden jar we 
store electricity ; that is we can hold them by matter; 
which is contrary to Dr. Hall's correct assertion that 
"Immaterial entities are not subject to the laws that 
govern matter." We can also store magnetism by an 
armature that connects the poles of the magnet. Grav- 
itation is always stored in every particle of matter, 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 37 

and no human ingenuity has ever "liberated" it. Has 
sound ever been stored ? Can it be stored in any musi- 
cal or other instrument ? The phonograph reproduces 
sounds- — the very notes, and the tones of the voice are 
reproduced by a vibratory diaphragm. 

Magnetism is increased by imparting its properties to 
another body, but electricity is lost by doing so. Do 
Ernst Haeckel and Dr. A. Wilford Hall see analogy 
here? Magnetism is retained by closing the circuit; 
electricity can only.be retained by leaving the circuit 
open. How exact the analogy ! Gravitation and mag- 
netism are both local ; gravitation is in proprotion to 
the matter that contains it, and which never parts with 
it. Can the same be said of sound, light or heat? 

"Magnetism and gravitation," Dr. A. Wilford Hall 
asserts, (no doubt unwittingly,) "differ from everything 
else in nature." So they do, but still they are subject 
to the laws that govern matter. They are confined 
by matter "Limited by matter." We do not think 
we are assuming too much when we say that they are 
produced by matter. 

Art. 6 * of the Substantialist creed tells us that "the 
materialist logically reaches the conclusion, from the 
principles of physic taught in our colleges, that life, 
soul and mind necessarily cease to exist." That, "if 
Christian scientists teach that sound, light, heat, elec- 
tricity, magnetism and gravitation are modes of motion 
there is no rational ground to believe that the forces 
that cause mental and vital manifestations are anything 
else." All that we need say to this assertion, is, that 
scientists whether believers or not, see no such conclu- 
sion forced upon Christians. Even those who are un- 
believers do not see the analogy that would make such 



* Scientific Arena, Vol. I, page 7, last sentence. 



38 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

a conclusion necessary or probable or even rational. 

Substantialists beat furiously upon their gong, "logi- 
cal analogy"] but what writer on logic has ever 
counted analogy as anything more than probability? 
The analogies may be so numerous, and unbroken y 
that the probability amounts to an inductive demon- 
stration ; but where do we find any two of these forces 
that present such an unbroken analogy ? We challenge 
Ernst Haeckel and Dr. A. Wilford Hall to show one 
analogy between life or mind, and the other so-called 
"forces of nature." Do not agnostic scientists admit 
that there is no analogy here? Of what other force, 
save life or mind, can it be said, "that no shred of 
trustworthy testimony exists to prove that it has 
ever appeared, independently of a similar force?" 

Substantialist publications constantly ring in our 
ears that " Haeckel proves, by the science of our schools, 
that life and mind are vibrations and must cease in the 
very necessity of the scientific analogy." Still our 
teachers and professors laugh at these assertions; made, 
not only without proof, but in the very face of proof to 
the contrary. 

Both Jews and Christians have long believed that the 
soul of man is an im- mate rial substantial entity. Not be- 
cause science says so; but because their faith accepts 
what is revealed. Had the speculations of Socrates 
and Plato been continued to the present day, they 
would have demonstrated nothing — science throws but 
a dim light upon this subject, but what it does throw, 
helps revelation. That life and mind act as primary 
forces, goes far to establish what revelation teaches 
about man. 

The Microcosm says • " If force be substantial it 

♦Vol. VI • 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 39 

must be subject to the conditions of locality, intensity, 
divisibility, concentration and rarefaction." Is that so? 
Locality is conceded to be a property of existence. 
He reckons the soul of man as a force. Is it 
capable of "concentration, rarefaction and divisibility? 
While much has been accomplished in science by study- 
ing phenomena, nothing has been accomplished by 
trying to find out the causes of such phenomena. Not 
that we would wish to stop modest theorising — much 
that is interesting and instructive comes of it. We 
can see where certain theories explain, and where they 
fail to explain. 

Men whom science has placed in her highest niches 
whose fame will last while the world lasts, have seen 
their own littleness and have not been ashamed to own 
it. Sir Isaac Newton, not long before his death re- 
marked ; "I feel like a child who has been picking up 
shell's upon the shore, while the ocean of science lies 
before me, unexplored." The elder Agassiz said "We 
ought 'to know the limit of our information. Those 
who have an answer for everything must make up an- 
swers-. It is hard to say, ' I do not know,' especially 
for teachers, but I would trust no one, who has not the 
courage to say it." In another lecture Louis Agassiz 
said, " The lesson that there are limits to our knowledge 
is an old one;. but it has to be taught again— it was 
taught by Buddha, it was taught by Socrates, 
it was taught by Max Muller, and it was taught 
by Kant." How different is all this from the 
remark made by a substantialist to the author. " If 
you do not know the cause of a phenomenon, you sim- 
ply confess yourself an ignoramus." Who tried harder 
than Prof. Faraday, to find out what electricity is? 
Who devoted more time to that and kindred subjects? 



SUBSTA NTIA USM . 

He was compelled however, to confess himself an ig- 
noramus kel and A. Wilford Hall are 
not "ignoramuses - that it is nothing but 
vibra • that it is an \ 
ial substantial entii The arrogance of these men 
would iv ible, if science had never blundered, 
but the path of sciei i rewi ■ i ! ;ploded tlieo- 
• that hi Lie • . ates-, in their 
tin]-, ' both these men can count. 

No one te .... 

bjection and 
prove the possibility jse I • alogy is 

thus used in i Cor. XV, 35". * " other books use 

analogy in the same way. This is Scientific analogy 
so much harped on by Subsi • >ut seldom used 

by them. Logic ad* ■ h . • . . 

St. Paul and Bishop Butler understood the rules 
of logic t< - to use a ; in the u nan- 

nerof Ernst Haeckel and A. Wilford Hall, in attempt- 

] ersistent stu- 

st in their trying to 

as veen 

called fo f nat 

whd say that 

' ' ' st, the 






SUBSTANTIAUSM. 4 1 



SOUND 



oi 
v 



Dr. A. Wilford Hall says that the Wave Theory 
sound is older and more plausible than the same theon 
applied to other forces; and therefore he makes his 
principal attack on sound, because, if the * "wave the- 
ory fails, here, the whole theory falls." He, no doubt, 
shows that some of the explanations and calculations 
of eminent scientists are not supported by facts ; but 
Prof. Tyndall had said so before. The Impulse theory 
is not open to' the same strictures. We have seen, in 
the case of the croquet balls, how impulses can be com- 
municated from one particle of matter to another, 
without perceptible loss in energy or time. We also 
know that, without the particles of material air, or 
some other matter to conduct it there is no sound. 

f "The substantial theory of sound:' says Dr. A. Wil- 
ford Hall, "the same as the wave theory teaches that 
the tone of a musical instrument is produced or liber- 
ated by means of vibrations." He admits that the vi- 
brations of the strings produce, or as he puts it "liber- 
ate" sounds, and that if these vibrations be stopped the 
sound stops. Now we know that these strings will 
vibrate in a vacuum better than they do in the air. 
Why do they not liberate sounds in the vacuum? Dr. 
Hall says that the air or some other conductor i 
essary to convey the sound to the ear after it is 1 



iber 



* Art 7 of Creed, last sentence, Scientific Arena, Vol I, p 
t Microcosm Vol. VII, page 33, verse \. 



42 SUBSTANTIAL ISM. 

ated; but again we ask, how matter can convey what 
is ////-material ? To convey the sound it must confine 
the sound to itself, it must limit the sound by "mater- 
ial conditions" which Dr. Hall says cannot be done to 
any immaterial entity. 

Throw a ball, which is indisputably matter, against 
a hard wall and it rebounds — when sounds in the at- 
mosphere strike the wall the sound impulses do the 
same; but Dr. Hall says that " im-material entities are 
not controlled by the laws that govern matter." In- 
deed our only reason for making a distinction between 
material and im-material entities is founded upon this 
difference. If these sounds be immaterial entities they 
disobey the law which Dr. Hall lays down. They are 
" controlled " by the material wall. 

Substantialists admit that sound travels at differ- 
ent rates and loudness through different matter — in or- 
dinary air, 1,090 ft. per second, where the air is very 
dense, as in a diving bell, the movement is quicker and 
louder— here a fire cracker sounds like a musket ; but 
where the air is rare, as on a mountain, the musket 
sounds about as loud as a fire cracker does in ordinary 
atmosphere. Dry wood conducts stronger than wet 
wood. Make a string tight and it is a good conductor, 
but a loose string is no conductor of sound. We see 
from these and other phenomenon, that the more firm- 
ness and elacticity a body posesses, the better are its 
conducting powers. This phenomenon of resonance is 
well understood by manufacturers of musical instru- 
ments. The sounds of the harp, violin, guitar, piano 
and organ, would be faint without their very dry 
sounding boxes. Why is it necessary to dry the wood 
thoroughly before making it into these boxes? The 
manufacturer may be ignorant of the reason, but ex- 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 43 

perience has taught him that it must be done. Long 
before science had studied out the reason, the manufac- 
turers of musical instruments had learned that sounds 
are conveyed to the air and through the air to the ear, 
stronger and clearer by dry boxes than by damp boxes. 
The reason is, that dry wood is more elastic, and there- 
fore communicates vibrations of every kind better than 
undried wood. A substantialist meets us here by say- 
ing that steel, which is firmer and more elastic than 
iron, does not conduct sound as well as iron. He sim- 
ply illustrates what we have remarked, that much is 
gained by studying phenomena, and very little by try- 
ing to find out the cause of such phenomena. He also 
shows how flimsy arguments may be that are built 
upon analogy only. However, one or several exceptions 
could not wholly invalidate a rule that is established by al- 
most universal induction. Such exceptions only show 
that there is some controlling influence that has not 
been discovered; but, if the rule were overthrown, it 
would not effect our argument in the least, that sound trav- 
els better through some substances, than through others ; 
and that some substances augment sounds. These are 
facts which substantialists admit ;' but can a substance 
of any kind either conduct or retard what is im-mater- 
ial? 

Stand a turning fork after striking it on one of these 
dry wooden boxes, and see how its sound is augmented. 
We can understand that the vibrations or impulses of 
the wood may be stronger than those of the metal ; 
but, if sound be an im-mat e 'rial substantial entity ,the box 
must create more of this entity, or as Dr. A. Wilford 
Hall puts it must "intensify" this entity. He says 
that the sound was there before and is only liberated 
by the stroke. It thus appears that the sound is not 



44 SUBSTAXTIAUSM. 

a specific entity like man's soul, but a quantitive entity, 
capable of being liberated in quantities by the mater- 
ial box. But what, again we ask, does the matter in 
the wooden box, or the want of matter in a vacuum, 
have to do with that which is im-matcrialf The man- 
ufacturer made the fork. If he makes it one way it 
has an A soul— if another way it contains a C soul. 
No matter how many times we strike the fork, we find 
just as much of this quantitive soul left as there v. 
first. 

Sounds are reproduced in the phonograph so like 
the original that the voice can be recognized. If sounds 
be entities, the phonograph must have the power to 
re-create entities instead of vibrations or impulses. As 
sound has never been stored we cannot presume that 
the phonograph stores them; and. if it did, the sounds 
would become fainter as the stored sounds became 
exhausted. A vibratory diaphragm . ■ do the ; 

much as we see a pair of vibratory r . „s, receiving 

and communicating the sounds, and even the tones of 
tin- voice, in the telephone. 

The Rev. J.J. Swander A. M., D. D., a noted author 
hi favor oi substantialism, writes in his Text Bool 
Sound ' as lollm 'The sound force of the voice 

<l by the vibration of the vocal organs, may, 
the intervening air and set the transmitting dia- 
phragm oi the telepho, this commuui- 
the tremor to the conducting wire, which takes 
nd communicates these various links of incidental 
^ the air, thus conducting the s Uses 
t0 t] • which vibrating links conspire 
producing as well as conducting the origi- 
ound ' 1K: of suchamechan- 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 45 

ical telephone wire be stopped off anywhere along the 
line, by a rigid vise, and no audible sound will be com- 
municated to the receiving diaphragm, thus showing 
/ur:,> essentia/ is \ ■- vition to the usual methods of gener- 
ating sonorus force." The italics are ours, but we are 
constrained to ask, did ever philosopher before state 
facts so well against his own theory? How is it pos- 
sible that such a man, as Dr. S wander can be a substau- 
tialistf He says, however, that "motion is a nonentity 
and can produce nothing nor cause an effect." Now 
we admit that "a nonentity can produce nothing," but 
the motion of the diaphragms, and the wire of the tel- 
ephone, which the doctor so beautifully illustrates, are 
not the producing causes of the sounds. The produc- 
ing causes are the lungs and the vocal organs of the 
speaker. 

As to motion it is always caused by an entity, but 
the motion when communicated to another entity 
sometimes produces tremendous effects. The motion- 
less cannon ball is harmless; but, when motion is com- 
municated to it by the firing of gunpowder, it strikes 
its object with terrific effect. We can hardly turn our 
eves anywhere, without seeing how entities in motion, 
"cause effects"; which, without motion they would 
not cause. Dr. Hall says, " the atmosphere in its ordin- 
ary condition, conducts sound 1090 feet per second : 
water about 4 times as fast, pine wood ten times, and 
iron 17 times as fast." This is about correct. Now 
let our substantialist take his stand at one end of a brick 
or stone wall, and have a person to strike the wall at 
the other end with a hammer. He hears two distinct 
strokes from that one stroke of the hammer the last 
from its time and loudness, came through the air; the 
other, from Dr. Hall's admission came through the 



46 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

more solid wall. The experiment has often been- tried 
and can be tried by anyone. Substantialists would 
say that two distinct entities are liberated by that one 
stroke. If so, these im-material '. substantial entities are 
queer things. How many such entities are in the 
wall? We cannot conceive of there being an indefi- 
nate number, but every stroke liberates one throueh 
the wall ; another through the air — more if there be 
other conductors, as rods of wood or metal. The num- 
ber of entities in that wall does seem infinite; for no 
stroke has failed to liberate all that the conductors call 
for, no matter how often the wall may be struck. The 
wave and impulse theories both teach that vibrations 
or impulses are given to any matter that is near enouo-h 
to receive them, and are communicated from particle 
to particle of such matter, until finally they reach the 
ear. 

Evidence against the substantiality of sound meets 
us everywhere— not philosophical theories, but demon- 
strated scientific facts. We will advance another argu- 
ment against the substantiality of sound— one that is, 
we think, incontrovertible. Proof, positive that sound 
is caused by vibrations or impulses in another matter, 
and that, when these impulses follow each other in 
quick succession the tone is higher than when the suc- 
cession is not so quick. 

Take your stand upon the platform of a country 
railroad station, when an express train is about to pass, 
'^ notice the sound of the whistle as it comes towards 
von, as it passes the station, and as it goes from you 
Most of our readers have probably observed this differ- 
ence in the sounds of the whistle. As it passes the 
station yon eateh the true tone of the whistle, as you 
would hear it if the train were standing there ; as the 



SUBSTANTIA LISM. 47 

train came towards you, the impulses .being .crowded 
together and following each other in quicker succession , 
the tone is perceptably raised ; if the train be moving rap- 
idly, the tone of the whistle may be raised a whole note. 
As the train recedes after passing the station, the tone 
of that same whistle is lowered just as much as it was 
raised before. Three distinct tones you hear ; but only 
one is heard by the people on the train who are moving 
with the whistle ; and that is the same tone that you 
heard when the train passed you. By either the vi- 
bration theory or the impulse theory this is all plain — 
the pulsations of the sound, to one moving with the 
whistle are neither Crowded together, nor parted by 
the motion of the train. 

According to the Substantialist theory, the steam in 
passing through the whistle, liberates to those on the 
platform three distinct entities, but to those on the 
train, moving with the whistle, the same entity is lib- 
erated constantly. A Substantialist answers us here, 
that the motion of the train alters the entity. As the 
motion of the train is the same when approaching, pas- 
sing and receding, why does it not alter it the same 
in all these cases? Why does it not alter it to those 
on the train ? What evidence have we that one entity 
is ever altered into another entity? Electricity and 
magnetism may be converted into each other ; but it is 
begging the question to say that they are entities, with- 
out some proof that they are. 

Impulses are not a philosophical theory, but a demon- 
strated scientific fact. The croquet balls which we 
have cited, show that impulses can be communicated 
from one particle of matter to another, without any 
diminution of energy, nor any appreciable consump- 
tion of time. No ! nor any perceptible motion in the 



48 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

intervening particles. Were impulses, like ether, an 
nndenionstrated theory, still like ether, they would ex- 
plain what substantialism cannot explain. 

Until Substantialism makes some one phenomenon 
plainer, it cannot rank as high as the ether theory ; 
which, though un-demonstrated and opposed by some 
phenomena, accords with other phenomena. 



^ 

m. 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 49 



OPTIONS. 



It has been asserted that substantialism is endorsed by 
learned men ? Was it not admitted that the early 
Gnostics were more learned than the Catholic Chris- 
tians? Was not Ptolrny a learned man? Was not 
his system of Astronomy supported by learned men for 
several generations? Tycho Brahe was a learned man 
— the leading astronomer of his age — the first man 
who had the charge of an observatory — the inventor of 
many astronomical instruments. Kepler acknowl- 
edges his indebtedness to Tycho Brahe's observations ; 
from which he calculated his three great laws. Still, 
Brahe lived and died in error about the movements of 
the heavenly bodies. He lived after Copernicus, and 
labored to overthrow his system. He tried to prove 
that the sun moves around the earth. According to 
Dr. A. Wilford Hall, * Sir Isaac Newton and La Place, 
both fell into very ridiculous errors. Will he say that 
these men were not learned men ? 

The men, whom substantialists most delight to quote, 
are professors in colleges. Will they claim a majority 
of these, or even a considerable minority ? Haeckel is 
a professor in the University of Jena. Dr. A. Wilford 
Hall says of an American professor, who has had the 
temerity to oppose substantialism, that f " Notwithstand- 
ing his evident incapacity of grasping the true relation 

* Microcosm Vol. VII, page 50, col. 1, last verse. 

t Microcosm Vol. I, page 139, 1st col., line 35, and p. 140, 2d col., line .;. 



50 SUBSTANTIA LISM. 

between cause and effect in physics and mechanics, 
he really does seem to catch a glimpse of the fact that 
this argument, "(referring to one of his own,) "kills the 
wave theory." "Really," (says the gentlemanly Dr. 
A. Wilford Hall,) "ones sympathy involuntarily goes 
out for such a superficial ignoramus." 

" Ingnoramus" is a favorite word with substantialists 
when speaking of those who differ from them — so was 
its Greek equivalent a favorite word with the ancient 
gnostics. Dr. Hall says that this professor cannot 
"distinguish between cause and effect," and that he is 
"superficial ". How true it is that people always see 
their own faults and failings reflected in others i 
This professor, however, "does catch a glimpse that 
the wave theory is killed," but not having substan- 
tialist eyes, he fails to see that killing the wave theory, 
necessarily establishes substantialism. Perhaps the wave 
theory was supplanted by the impulse theory, before sub- 
stantialism was invented. However, these remarks and 
others with which subsiantialist writings teem, go far 
to lessen the endorsements, of the few learned profes- 
sors whom they cite. 

Among those whom the Microcosm cites most fre 
quently arc H. A. Mott, Ph. D., F. C. S. ; and Capt. R. 
Kelso Carter A. M., Dr. Mott, grandson of the cele- 
brated surgeon Valentine Mott, is known as a Chemist; 
and Capt. Carter is professor of Mathematics in the 
Pennsylvania Military Academy. These gentlemen 
are, no doubt, scholars. They write very well against 
some of the errors that have long been received as 
scientific facts. Rev. J. J.Swander A.M., D. D., to whom 
reference is frequently made, is more pronounced. He 
no doubt thinks himself a substantialist— but he speaks 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 51 

of sound as * "generated," while Dr. A. Wilford Hall 
says "liberated". According to substantialism the sounds 
are not "generated", they are there and only need to be 
" liberated". He refers to the motion in bodies 
that is "generated," by the sound in an adjacent 
body. He has the good sense in several instances to 
confess himself an "ignoramus" . He does not seem 
to think, as do some substantialists, that pulling down 
other theories is all that is needed to establish substan- 
tialism ; however, much of his book does show, that he 
thinks that what is unknown, or beyond man's compre- 
hension favors substantialism. If he would throw away 
his gnostic spectacles he would not see that way. He 
raises a distinction between sound and the phenomenon 
of sound ; which to our eyes appears to be a distinction 
where no difference exists, and which can have no in- 
fluence with anyone not already a gnostic. 

He has somewhat of the same harsh way of assert- 
ing his opinions that has ever clung to gnostics. He 
thinks that, f " a good smart schoolboy " or "a Hotten- 
tot, need not be led astray by undulatory nonsense." 
Now we do not advocate the undulatory theory of light, 
heat, magnetism, electricity and gravitation; nor even 
the existence of ether.' We think that they are both 
unproved theories; and that some of the phenomena 
of the so called forces do not agree with these theories; 
but it is rather noticable, for a philosopher whose own 
theory explains nothing, to call that "nonsense" 
which does explain somethings. Like Substantialist 
writings generally, Dr. Swander's are largely made up 
of rhetoric instead of logic— with flowery sentences, 
and ad captandum remarks that prove nothing. 

* Text Book on Sound, page 158, answer 8. 
t Microcosm Vol. VII, page 5, col 2, line 2. 



52 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

The Microcosm copies and refers to the articles of 
George Ashdown Audsley F. R. I. B. A., published in 
the English Mechanic. Why he is claimed as a sub- 
stantialist is not very evident. He attacks the wave 
theory of sound, but others had attacked it before sub- 
stantialism appeared. Audsley attacks the calcula- 
tions made by Newton and others, about the mathe- 
matical swing of sound waves, as one scientist attacks 
the theories and conclusions of another. He seems 
to be seeking truth, not arguing to support a pet 
theory. The Microcosm also quotes Prof. Tyndall's 
words that "Our reputed knowlege regarding the 
transmission of sound was erroneous." Why does it 
not class Prof. Tyndall as a Siibstantialist also? 

There are articles in the Microcosm, that have no 
reference to substantialism, which are worth reading. 




SUBSTANTIAUSM. 53 



Substantialists have collected many scientific facts, 
but their conclusions are worthless, sometimes because 
of their superficial knowledge, but oftener because of 
their peculiar views which, prevent their seeing other 
facts that are quite as potent. 

In the writings of substantialists we generally see a 
confounding of cause and effect. The effect is easily 
seen by our senses ; while the cause is found by a course 
of reasoning. For instance, they frequently assert that 
nothing can put matter in motion but an entity, which 
no one disputes. They say that motion cannot be a 
correct definition of force, because only a substantial 
existence can move inert matter. They are simply 
confusing terms. Force is sometimes used for the 
concrete substance ; thus we say the national forces re- 
ferring to the soldiers and sailors ; but we also use the 
word in an abstract sense, as the force of circumstances. 
A scientist or philosopher may restrict the meaning of 
a word ; and no one objects to Substantialists doing 
so; but they have no right to claim, that the word, 
whose meaning they thus restrict is susceptible of 
no other meaning. No scientist disputes but 
what the ultimate cause of any effect is an entity — 
generally a material entity. In most cases the 
intermediate cause is a material entity also ; as the bell 
the organ, the drum, etc., ruled over and acted upon by 



54 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

the material hands of man, which material hands are 
acted upon by the im -material substantial soul. 

In the same verse in which we find this indisputa- 
ble assertion we also find this * " as well might the car- 
penter call his chisels and saws modes and methods, in 
stead of real substantial entities." Such sophistries are 
not uncommon in substantialist writings. The Scienti- 
fic Arena says f "If gravity pulls a stone to the earth, 
then gravity is the force that causes motion". Scientists 
see the effect, and call it gravity — by a figure of 
speech they often call gravity a force, nevertheless 
they recognize gravity as an attraction caused by mat- 
ter. 

If gravity were the primary cause of motion, as life 
is, it might be called an entity; but can gravity be sepa- 
rated from the matter which produces it ? Is not grav- 
ity, clearly, a principle that resides in all matter? Can 
it be shown that the matter does not exert the force 
that pulls the stone ? Gravity is an attribute of mat- 
ter ; but then some substantialists call all attributes en- 
tities. We always find gravity, in exact proportion to 
the mass of matter in the body from which the attrac- 
tion proceeds, and we feel licensed to conclude that the 
mass of matter in that body is the cause of the gravity. 

The Scientific Arena says j « That the force which 
makes the steam effective is the heat," therefore that 
the heat is an entity; but is not heat, itself caused 
by the burning f fuel? Heat is not the primary 
cause. 

The argument to which they give the most space, is 

one based upon the stridulations of the locust. They 

what is no doubt true, that "this tiny animal, pos. 

m Vol. mii ,. •„ col. 2, line 13, 
Vol. I. p. 
I Vol. 1. page 13, topoJ 3d column. 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 55 

sessing but little strength, is heard for half a mile , and 
if the wave theory be correct it must move a globe of 
atmosphere one mile in diameter" — a weight which a 
a Durham ox could not budge. Dr. A. Wilford Hall 
then asks the question, "Can anything be more ab- 
surd?" Yes! we think that it is more absurd to sup- 
pose that this tiny locust liberates from his body a sub- 
stantial entity ', that fills such a globe. This objection 
having been advanced before this, by the Christian 
Standard, a writer in the Microcosm remarks that * 
"The Standard critic seems really to have struck a 
happy thought, and supposes he has effectually caught 
the substatantial philosophy napping at last"; and he 
makes himself very merry over the stupidity of the 
Critic, who, he thinks, does not see the difference be- 
tween a material and an im-material entity; but as 
neither revelation nor science has given us any hint 
that a living being can part with an im-material entity 
without a loss of strength, and as we know that de- 
priving a living body of some things, which substan- 
tialists call im-material entities, does produce a loss of 
strength, the Critic, certainly, has quite as much right 
to assume one position, as our writer in the Microcosm 
has to assume the other. He can advance quite as 
much proof as the Substantialist can. The impulse 
theory is open to no such objection. 

Substantialists tell us about "force elements existing 
in space and in all matter," with as much assurance 
as though they had some evidence of it. If they can- 
not explain force any better, why not acknowledge, 
with Faraday and others that "they do not know what 
it is." But then some of their substantialist friends 
would call them, as they have called others, "ignora- 

* Vol. Ill, page 307, second column. 



56 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

MUS"; and it is much better to know that the world 
rests upon the shoulders of Atlas, or on the back of a 
huge tortoise than to be "an ignoramus" . 

Dr. Hall says, that "we know nothing about waves, 
except as we see them in water, and that in water, 
when a wave strikes a post or any other object, it is 
not reflected, but goes around." He is, no doubt, 
right in both these assertions, but do not sounds do the 
same? Do they not go round small objects? And is 
not water, as well as sound, thrown back by an impas- 
sable barrier, as a solid wall or the beach ? If he ex- 
pects to establish substantialism by analogy, does he not 
see that an analogy confronts him here. 

He tells us that * "cohesion", another of his im-mater- 
ial forces, interferes with the passage of electricity in 
glass." It is certainly an ingenious, if not an ingen- 
uous invention, to stop electricity, which is an im-ma- 
terial entity, by another im-material entity, and not by 
the material glass. As he admits that im-material sub- 
stances are not subject to the laws governing matter, 
why did he not think of this sooner, and apply it to 
other things instead of making matter stop im-material 
substances] but what evidence has he that one im-ma- 
terial force can stop another ? They do not seem to do 
so in telegraphing, as messages can be sent both ways 
on the same wire, by im-material electricity ; but per- 
haps we are "quibbling" to ask such a question, still 
we cannot help asking it. Im-material light is not in- 
terrupted by this ////-material cohesion, but if the ma. 
terial glass be ground, then the light is interrupted by 
the material surface of the glass being irregular. If 
subsiantialists would "quibble" a little more they 
would not put forth such arguments. They would see 

* Scientific Arena, Vol, i page 45. 



SUBSTANTIA LISM. 57 

how the irregularity of the material surface of the glass 
throws what they call ////-material light into so many 
criss-cross lines that what could be seen through this 
material glass before can be seen no longer. By Dr. 
Hall's correct definition of im -material bodies they 
could not be affected by grinding the glass. 

A substantialist say that in the telephone the im-ma- 
terial sound of the voice is converted into im-material 
electricity and back again into immaterial sound. 
This is the purest kind of guesswork. What evidence 
has he that one entity is ever converted into another? 
Our whole experience is against such an assumption. 
The chemist may appear to do such a miracle, but he 
only causes elements, or entities to separate, and then 
to form new compounds by recombining these ele- 
ments or entities differently. To change one entity 
into another is an act of creation. One kind of motion 
however, can be converted into another by man. We 
see it constantly done by machinery — horizontal mo- 
tion is converted into vertical and vice versa. Both 
are converted into circular motion. 

Electricity may be converted into magnetism and 
magnetism into electricity ; but the Substantialist, who 
assumes that here he has found his evidence, is simply 
begging the question as any logician will at once see ; 
for he has given us no proof yet that electricity or 
magnetism are entities; and to most minds this fact 
would imply that they are not entities. Faraday, af- 
ter the closest study, confessed himself an "ignoramus" 
as to what electricity and magnetism are. 

* Substantialists quote the well known fact, that 
though a bell vibrates in a vacuum, no sound is heard 
unless the bell stands on a sounding board, which is in 



* Scientific Arena, Vol. i, page 45. 



58 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

communication with the outside air. This fact they 
quote in support of subs tan tialism ; but, would it not 
convey the idea to most minds that sound is not an en- 
tity — that it is caused by some disturbance of the at- 
mosphere? If the sound of the bell be a substantial 
entity, why does it not strike the board through the 
vacuum as well as through the air ? Does an ^-ma- 
terial entity need a conductor? What evidence is 
there of it? How can an im-material entity be held in 
chains by a material conductor? Dr. Hall says that "it 
is not subject to the laws governing matter." 

Light, which he claims is also an' im-material entity, 
has no conductor, unless ether be its conductor for it 
passes as well through a vacuum as through the air. 
It seems very plain that the vibrations of the bell are 
communicated to the air, if there be any within the 
receiver, and then through the glass to the outer air, 
thence through the outer air to the ears. When the bell 
is in the vacuum, and stands upon a sounding board, its 
vibrations are carried by the board to the outer air, and 
by the board made stronger. 

Writers in the Microcosm endeavor to show that the 
air waves, which break things, travel at different 
speed from sound, and this, they think, proves the sub- 
stantiality of sound, on the principle, that whatever 
they cannot explain proves their theory. The waves 
that produce concussion probably do -travel, sometimes 
faster and sometimes slower than whatever causes 
sound, but ordinary mortals cannot see in this any proof 
that sound is either one thing or the other. 

The sophistry to which we desire particularly to in- 
vite attention, is about the ear itself. To a person 
not acquainted with the anatomy of the ear, it is the 



"' N "' "I. page6i, also in Text Book on Sound, Answer 



29. 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 59 

most misleading of all substantialist arguments, but to 
one who is acquainted with the anatomy of the ear it 
is the most glaring sophism. It has been said that a 
half truth is more dangerous than a direct falsehood. 
We are sure that the writer has not wilfully kept back 
part of the truth, like Ananias and Saphira. He has, 
more probably, attempted to handle a subject with 
which he is imperfectly acquainted. 

About one inch within the outer ear, we find the 
Membrana Tympani which a writer in the Micro- 
cosm says * "is a flabby mass of tendenous tissues, not 
stretched at all, as falsely supposed." So far he is 
right, but he should go on, and tell us about the little 
muscles that are attached to this Membrana Tympani, 
placed there by an Omniscient Creator, that this "flabby 
mass of tissue" may be drawn to a state of tension, as 
soon as such tension is needed. Had he known the 
existence of these muscles, he could not have been so 
dishonest as to omit noticing them. Can it be pos- 
sible that he knew of their existence, but never thought 
why the Creator placed them there, what use he in- 
tended them for? 

Let us pass this "flabby mass of tissued," for which a 
substantialist can have no use, no matter whether it be 
loose or tight, and we come to the Tympanum Proper, 
a small tube, less than an inch in length, separated 
from the outer world by this flabby membrana tym- 
pani, commonly called the drum of the car. At the 
other end the Tympanum Proper is separated from the 
inner ear by the membrane of the vestibule. We thus 
have the outer ear, the middle ear between these two 
membranes, and the inner ear, beyond the membrane 



* Vol. vii, page 34, line 25. 



60 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

of the vestibule, which is filled with a liquid, in which 
floats one end of the auditory nerve. 

The tympanum proper, or middle ear, somewhat 
resembles a drum. The outer head, this "flabby mass 
of tendenous tissue" is always ready to be drawn to a 
state of tension, by the little muscles, whenever tension 
is needed. Drums ordinarily have eyelets in their sides, 
that the air inside may be in equilibrium with that out- 
side. The Creator has provided the middle ear with 
the eustachian tube for the same purpose. This tube 
communicates with the throat and thus with the outer 
air. Extending from one end of the Tympanum proper 
to the other end, are three small bones attached loosely 
to each other and to the membrane at each end, and 
held in position by small ligaments provided for that 
purpose. Whenever the little tympanic muscles tighten 
this "flabby tissue" — the membrana tympani — then 
these little bones are pressed against each other and 
against the membranes at both ends of the middle ear, 
much like the communication that is formed by the 
wires and magnets which connect the two tympani of 
the telephone. 

Every electrician knows that electricity produces 
tension in the wire through which it passes. In the 
telephone, the tympani and magnets are always in a 
state of tension, and the wire, corresponding to these 
bones, is brought into tension by the electricity. A 
wonderful instrument is the telephone, but it is only 
copied after the middle ear, which was designed by 
Infinite- Wisdom. 

To return to the ear ; when the "flabby," membrana 
tympani is tightened, by the little muscles, and these 
little bones are brought firmly together, then the im- 
pulses of the outer atmosphere, which strike the first 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 6 1 

membrane, are communicated by these little bones to 
the inner membrane, and through the second mem- 
brane to the acoustic or auditory nerve. 

In the ^Microcosm is the story of a man who had 
the tympanic membranes of both ears burst by the 
concussion from an explosion, who, after the paral)sis, 
incident to'the accident, had passed off, heard better 
than before* We do not doubt it, for scientific anat- 
omists have said, that they saw no use in the tympanic 
arrangement, but to protect the membrane of the ves- 
tibule. The impulses they have said, could be just as 
well communicated by the air, c'irectly to the mem- 
brane of the vestibule, without such an arrangement. 
This assertion of the anatomists, the Microcosm, by 
this quotation, unwittingly proves to be correct. 

When the little tympanic muscles are in repose, as 
they always are when the person is not listening, this 
flabby membrana tympani, being relaxed, projects into 
the outer ear, and the little bones of the tympanum 
touch each other lightly. In this condition, if any sud- 
den concussion strikes the first membrane, it finds that 
membrane loose and flabby, consequently makes a much 
less impression, and the bones, also touching each other 
lightly, the concussion is very much weakened before 
it reaches the inner earor vestibule. 

When listening, the whole tympanum is in tension. 
Should a concussion suddenly strike it, then the mem- 
branae tympanorum would be in great danger. Such 
a combination of circumstances can seldom happen ; 
but when the first membrane, (this "flabby tissue") is 
burst, the membrane of the vestibule would be more 
easily burst. 

They see that a tightened membrana tympani would 

Vol. i page 344, verse 3. 



62 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

imply waves or impulses in the atmosphere. The mem- 
brane of the vestibule should teach them the same les- 
son, for that is always in tension; the little muscles of 
this "flabby skin" should teach it; the chain of three 
small bones that passes through the tympanum 
proper, and are always ready to be tightened, should 
teach it. The whole construction of the ear teaches 
this lesson. Still, Dr. A. Wilford Hall actually quotes 
this accident, and cites the construction of the tar in 
support of his philosophy. If, in this case quoted in 
the Microcosm, the first membrane were burst, a con- 
cussion would strike the second membrane, without 
any intervening arrangement to soften it, and the 
second membrane, being always in tension, would be in 
clanger. 

Can any one view such a contrivance to protect the 
ear proper from accident, and believe that blind chance 
did it all? If so, his faith in blind chance is wonderful. 
Dexelopment will not account for it — development 
presupposes a necessity that causes such development. 
The tympanic arrangement has not been developed 10 
meet an exigency, but is provided against one that is 
not likely to happen. 

The Microcosm also quotes the dentaphone in sup- 
port of Substantialism. The cases where the dentaphone 
has been used, have generally been where there was a 
thickening of the tympanic membrane. Dr. Hall gives 
a case where there was no external ear. What can be 
made out of the use of the dentaphone, except that it 
receives the vibrations or impulses of the air, communi- 
cates them to the teeth, and through the teeth and bones 
of the skull to the liquid, in which floats one end of 
the auditory nerve? If sound be an immaterial substan- 
tial entity , how can the closed ear, or thickened tym- 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 63 

panic membranes that are material substantial entities, 
prevent its passage? All that revelation teaches as 
well as what Dr. Hall asserts about immaterial entities, 
is against any such assumption. Dr. Hall asserts what 
w T e all feel must be true, that "immaterial entities are 
not subject to the laws that govern matter." Still he 
is so blinded by his pet theory of substantialism, that 
he is constantly laboring to prove his own words false. 




64 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 



CONCLUSION. 

It is by fastening itself upon religion that substantial- 
ism shows itself to be a gnosticism. What has science 
to do with revelation? Theories are subjects for scien- 
tific investigation. Does it matter whether God created 
the world and all the rein by a single fiat or by a long 
process of development? The Master has said, "The 
gates of Hell shall not prevail n gainst His Church," 
but when infidels have tried to arraign science after 
science against the Bible, timid Christians have forgot- 
ten their Lord's promise. There never has been a time, 
however, when the enemies of Revelation have forgot- 
ten to make attacks. St. Paul found it necessary in 
hisjday, to warn St. Timothy to "avoid the oppositions 
of science falsely so called." Whenever it is sought to 
make Revelation depend upon scientific theories, we 
have "the oppositions of science falsely so called." 

In the seventeenth century, infidels were as Haeckle 
is now; but then they rode a different hobby. Then it 
was the Copernicau system of astronomy. They were 
then more blatant than now, and challenged Christians 
to reconcile the Copernicau system with Divine Reve- 
lation. Pope Urbane VIII thought that he could not 
reconcile them he should not have tried to reconcile 
them, but he thought that he must, and not being able 
to do so, he compelled Galileo to retract his teachings 
on that subject. What intelligent Christian now doubts 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 65 

the truth of the Copernican system ? Have not the 
successors of Urbane for two centuries upheld it? 
The proffessor of natural sciences in the University of 
Jena, dare not now flaunt this challenge in the face of 
Christians. 

Chemistry and geology have each been arrayed 
against our religion ; but now the truths of chemistry 
are seen to be proofs that "Order is Heaven's first law," 
while Hugh Miller and other geologists have shown 
such wonderful agreement between the Mosiac account 
of Creation, and that which geology shows, that this 
branch of science can no longer be arrayed against Rev- 
elation. What seemed most difficult to reconcile has 
long since been abandoned by all geologist. According 
to Dr. Hall, "Uyell tells us that in 1806, the French In- 
stitute named not less than eighty geological theories 
that were opposed to the Scriptures, but that not one 
of them is now held by geologists." Recently Bishop 
Colenso was deposed, in England, for disputing the 
Bible account of the Exodus of Israel ; but the objec- 
tions which he and some other philosophers raised then, 
have since vanished before the testimony of scientific 
surveyors, who have been sent to that country for an- 
other purpose. 

It has been said that "when scientists agree among 
themselves, it will be time to proclaim a conflict be- 
tween Nature and Revelation." No! not even then; 
for our belief does not rest upon scientific deductions 
and inductions, but upon revelation, supported as it is, 
by proofs both from history and science, as nothing else 
is supported. The intelligent Christian teacher often 
finds occasion to point out to his pupils how science 
clinches the proofs of revelation, but, nevertheless, he 
pursues his investigations into each subject separately. 



66 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

Sir Isaac Newton, who wijl always occupy a high niche 
in scientific fame, knew how to study both subjects. 
He could be at the same time a devout christian and 
a devoted scientist. "The prophesies were given" he 
said, "to prove the truth of revelation, as we see them 
fulfilled, not to gratify man's curiosity." Had Colenso 
been blessed with Newton's faith he w r ould not have 
disputed revelation. Since Newton's day the Bible 
has been proved correct in things, where at that time, 
even commentators adopted explanations which are now 
shown to be useless. 

The God that christians worship has always been 
called "the God of Israel." The Israelites are admitted 
to be a Shemitic race. Historians agree that they are 
descended from Shem, and that Joshua, a Jewish war- 
rior, reduced a part of the Canaanites to the condition 
of bond servants, and drove another part across the 
Isthmus of Suez ; but a thousand years before this event, 
how true was it all foretold by Noah ! In Gen. ix chap. 
26 verse where we read "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem 
and Canaan shall be his servant." The brineinff in of 
the gentiles to the worship of the "God of Israel," has 
always been called "the enlargement of- the gentiles." 
"Enlarge" and "enlargement" are frequently used in 
the Old Testament in the sense of setting free or bring- 
ing into better relations with God. Since the advent 
of Christ such an "enlargement of the gentiles," the 
descendents of Japheth, has taken place. Not even 
Prof. Ernst Haeckel will deny it, nor can he deny that 
Christians now occupy the place of Israel. He certainly 
cannot deny that the descendents of Canaan have been 
servants to the descendents of Japheth since the Christian 
era. We have nothing to do in this argument, with the 
righteousness or unrighteousness of Japheth 's children, 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 6j 

in dealing thus with Canaan's children, but only with the 
historical fact which none can deny. Will any student of 
history deny that long before Japheth w r as enlarged, 
this was all foretold in the poetic language of Noah? 
Let us read both the 26 and zy verses of Genesis, ix 
chapter, and note how exactly this prophesy has been 
fulfilled after the lapse of thousands of years. ''And he 
said, blessed be the Lord God of Shein, and Canaan shall 
be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall 
dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his ser- 
vant." 

Can any one acquainted with the history of the four 
great empires of the ancient w T orld, Babylon, Persia, 
Macedon and Rome, read in the book of the Prophet 
Daniel, of Nebuchadnezzar's image, or Daniel's own 
vision of the troubled sea and the four, beasts that it 
brought forth, and not see the fulfilment of prophecy? 
Let such an one read Daniel's interpretation of the 
image in Chap, ii from the u verse to the end of verse 
45, and then turn to the vii and viii chapters, if he still 
does not believe in the inspiration of that book, his 
faith in coincidences or else in interpolations must be 
wonderful, but if so, let him compare the prophecy of 
Isaiah with the New Testament, and see how correctly 
Isaiah foretold, six hundred years before, what would 
happen to the Messiah. 

Interpolation here would be impossible — the Jews 
have guarded these scriptures too jealously to permit 
Christians to interpolate things contrary to Jewish 
faith. To explain these prophecies, Jewish commen- 
tators have to resort to the most unnatural interpreta- 
tions. Long before Jesus was born, Alexander the 
Great ordered the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment to be translated into Greek by seventy learned 



68 SUBSTANTIAUSM. 

Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, is often 
used to corroborate the Hebrew Text, which must be 
copied upon parchment, by Jewish Scribes and depos- 
ited in every new Synagogue before it can be dedicated. 
Are not the Jews in every way a standing proof of the 
fulfilment of their own prophecies? The buried 
creords that are constantly being unearthed prove the 
truth of many things that infidels have denied, and 
Christians only accepted on strong faith. 

The old lines of attack have been generally aban- 
doned — Astronomy, chemistry, geology and even his- 
tory ! Now it is Evolution and the Wave-theory. 
That there is evolution within certain limits, no scien- 
tist be he believer or unbeliever will deny. Darwin, 
who never professed any belief, and many other scien- 
tists of all kinds of religious beliefs, as well as agnostics, 
admit the necessity of a creative power to originate the 
germs of life and mind. If some of them do not say so 
they nevertheless admit it, by acknowledging their in- 
ability to account for life and mind. Evolution only 
romoves the Creator farther back, but does not do away 
with the necessity of a Creator, nor contradict w T hat 
Moses asserts, that "In the beginning God created the 
heaven and the earth." 

Rev. Jas. Stalker, M. A., has expressed such a Chris- 
tian view of Evolution that we will quote it here. It 
would be difficult, we think to express the truth better. 
He says, "The scientific movement of the age is called 
Evolution. Darwin, now that his laborouslifeis ended, 
is beginning to be regarded in many quarters as the 
greatest man of recent times. A hundred young dici- 
ples who worship him are spreading his doctrines in 
in exaggerated and dogmatic form. He was always 
ready to acknowledge the difficulties lying in the way 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 69 

of his ideas ; but they are ready to draw out the scheme 
of the universe in all its elements, physical and spir- 
itual, as an unbroken evolution from primeval matter. 
How much this is like the working of second class 
minds always have been ! Difficulties that would stag- 
ger the author of a theory are rode over as nothing, by 
his second class admirers." " There has been evolution 
in revelation. God did not give the truth all at once, 
but at sundry times and in diverse manners. It is thus 
with all His works. All God's creatures grow. In the 
field we have first the blade, then the ear, after that the 
full corn in the ear, and in human life there is progress 
through the stages of childhood, youth and old age, 
The delight which we feel in watching things grow 
seems to be borrowed from the Divine mind itself." 

We are not aware that the thinkers among evolu- 
tionists have ever said that science disproves revela- 
tion, but some do assert that revelation needs to be 
confirmed by science. At the most, this is only nega- 
tive proof. Revelation does not ask our faith unsup- 
ported by positive proof, any more than science does. 
She gives us such proof in the fulfilment of her proph- 
ecies — proof, quiet as cogent as the demonstrations of 
science. 

Studying the phenomena of sound, long ago carried 
a conviction to the mind, that sound was produced by 
some sort of movement in matter — thus arose the 
Wave-theory. Dr. Hall admits the necessity of some 
matter to convey sound. No sound can be heard un- 
less conducted to the ear by matter — matter which is 
palpable to the senses— imaginary ether will not 
answer. 

The wave-theory of sound is very old — older than 
Christianity. If it was contrary to Divine Revelation , 



;0 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

why did not the Saviour condemn it? It may be ans- 
wered that Christ did not come to teach science, and 
the scientific theories then in vogue on most subjects 
have been exploded. Why then do not Substantialists 
follow their Lord's example? They profess to believe 
in Him, but join hands with Infidel Haeckel, and say- 
that the wave-theory is contrary to the religion that 
Jesus came to establish. 

The Impulse Theory, a modification of the wave-theory 
is open to none of the objections that have been urged 
against the wave-theory. It seems to explain every 
phenomenon of sound while the immaterial substantial 
theory explains nothing, and as we have shown, is op- 
posed by some of the phenomena of sound. We do 
not defend any theory that has been applied to the other 
forces, and we assert that none of them have to do with 
religion. 

Science has ever been the handmaid of our religion, 
but it does not need her help. Religion and science 
are independent subject. It is degrading to Revelation 
to say that it must be tested by Science, and it is de- 
grading to both to claim that we must put a bit into 
the mouth of Science and the reins into the hands of 
Revelation. 

Science is a knowledge of that which is evident to 
our senses, or is proved by logical deductions and in- 
ductions from such evidences. Unproved theories may 
be used during the progress of scientific investigation, 
but such theories form no part of science until they are 
demonstrated. Neither Ernst Haeckel nor A. Wilford 
Hall have an\ right to dogmatically assert their un- 
proved theories. 

Revelation teaches us what we cannot find out by 
our senses, nor by our senses and reason combined. 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. 7 1 

The assistant editor of the Microcosm says,* "The 
members of religious bodies who think need constant 
confirmation of their faith." Confirm their faith, then 
with the evidences of Christianity, such evidence is 
abundant, and it will not take half the time to show 
such evidence that it will to teach them the ratiocina- 
tions of gnostics. "If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one 
rose from tire dead." Snbstantialism, if all its unproved 
theories were admitted, would only show a probability. 

The Microcosm asserts that f "Young men in our 
colleges are becoming materialistic and agnostic in re- 
ligion." If so it is either because their professors do 
not issue the evidences that are hewed and squared to 
their hand, or else because the young men refused to 
accept any evidence on the subject. In either case they 
had better go somewhere else. 

Have we not had enough of trying to array science 
and revelation against each other? Those who believe 
in inspiration should leave such work to infidels. 
Haeckel and Hall have a right to advance what theories 
they please, and to try to prove them, but until they 
are demonstrated, let them hold them as working the- 
ories — they have no right to assert them, nor to de- 
mand that others shall accept them. When they do assert 
unproven theories they go beyond the domain of science. 
"They rush in where angels fear to tread" — rush into 
the realm of revelation. 

Had Substantialists let religion alone, we would let 
them alone. Such gnostic attempts to mix religion and 
science received the condemnation of the apostles and 
of the early church generally. The ancient gnostics 



*Yol. vt, page 13, Verse 2. 
tVol. Vii, page 42. 



72 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

called themselves the "intelligent christians." Dr. 
William Smith, referring to the gnostics, says, "Every 
union of philosophy and religion is the marriage 
of a mortal with an immortal, the religion lives, the 
philosophy dies." Those ancient gnostic theories are 
all dead. Those theories are, not only in the apostolic 
sense, "Science falsely so called," but true science has 
long ago consigned them to the heap of rubbish where 
many other exploded theories lie. While so much in 
nature lies unexplored, science cannot be occupied with 
the undemonstrated and undemonstrable theories of 
either Prof. Ernst Haeckel or Dr. A. WilfordHall. 

It is not to be presumed that the leaders of Substan- 
tialism will give up their ideas. The early gnostics were 
not easily turned from their errors. Many, no doubt, 
who adopted their teachings, afterwards abandoned 
them and accepted the teaching of the Church ; but 
they were not prominent persons, and history has not 
recorded their conversions. 

The ^'Scientific Arena tells us that "A clergyman 
who believes in the college views of the forces of na- 
ture and especially of sound, the mother of all so-called 
'modes of motion,' cannot stand one minute in the pres- 
ence of one of Huxley's weakest followers." f It also 
tells us that Substantialism "is the only possible escape 
from Haeckel's logic in favor of the utter annihilation 
of the soul at death." The Microcosm repeats the same 
idea, \ "It was Substantialism that saved theology from 
this overwhelming conclusion of Haeckel by demon- 
strating (?) that force in the physical realm, in every 
possible case, is a substantial though immaterial entity, 
and thus by an unanswerable natural analogy, broke the 

■ ■.«■ .;. line si. 
1 Vol. vii, page 1 1. 

1 vii, page 43, col, 2, line 9. 



SUBSTANTIALISM. 73 

force of Haeckel's materialistic logic." This paper also 
says that, * "had the Boston lecturer, Joseph Cook, been 
an intelligent convert to Substantial philosophy he 
could well have employed sound, light, heat, electricity, 
magnetism, gravitation, etc., as analogical conditions 
by which to elucidate the nature and permanent dura- 
bility of the soul." (?) 

The Scientific Arena says, f "The religious press of 
the country hailed Substantialism with admiration, and 
in some instances flattered it with extravagant enco- 
miums of praise. (?) Christian men throughout the world 
rejoiced in the happy day of their deliverance ;" but in 
the same article we are told that, % "Some of them are 
destitute of mental perspicasity, while others are effected 
with intellectual indolence mingled with religious utili- 
tarianism." It is certainly refreshing to find that there 
are "some christian men" that have not been captivated 
by this gnosticism. 

In the same article we find these words: § "If Sub- 
stantialism is not true, Christianity has no durable 
foundation." As Substantialism is not yet fifteen years 
old, it follows that for nearly 1900 years Christi- 
anity HAS BEEN BUILDING UPON THE SAND, and Juda- 
ism for a much longer period. What more could Haeckel 
say? What more could any enemy of revelation say? 
Hold ! say our readers, we have had enough of these 
quotations. Well, it will be a relief to get back to 
REVEALED Religion, and to Science as taught by un- 
fettered investigation and demonstration. We will only 
trouble you with one more quotation to show that this 
arrogance is seen by a Substantialist. Rev. Joseph 



* Vol. iv, page 344, col. 2, verse 2. 

t Vol. i, page 4> line 25. 

% Vol. i, page 4, line 42. 

§ Scientific Arena, Vol. I, page 4, col. 2, last verse. 



74 SUBSTANTIALISM. 

Clements of Harbor Spring, Mich., writes to the Mi- 
crocosm thus: *"One thing in the paper, to my mind 
at least, is to be regretted, i. e., the want of a kinder 
magnanimity in the spirit of some of the articles con- 
tributed." Perhaps others have noticed it but this is 
the only one whom we have found to object. This gen- 
tleman has accomplished but little, for one can scarcely 
open to a page of any subsequent number of the paper 
without seeing its philosophy asserted in the most pos- 
itive terms, with as little. reason or proof as the ancient 
gnostics gave for their philosophies ; and maintained 
with egotism, conceit and flattery unsurpassed by those 
gnosticisms. 

If Substantial! sm could prove all tha it claims, to 
prove, it would only give us only a deistical pliilosopky. 
If revelation does not furnish proof of its assertions in- 
dependently of science, then our religion is founded on 
science, not on revelation. If one doctrine of our faith 
must be proved by science, then all. If science must be 
called in to "break the materialistic fetters' in one in- 
stance why not in every instance? Does not TRUE log- 
ical analogy, as well as what Substantialists call "logical 
analogy;' demand this ? If it is claimed that the Im- 
mortality of the Soul MUST BE DEMONSTRATED by science, 
why not the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, 
the Atonement, &c. 

The whole trend of Substantialism is towards the re- 
action of the authority of revelation. Like an ancient 
gnosticism, it starts out to prove revelation by scientific 
reasoning, and like them it will, no doubt, land in 
deism or atheism, where it will find other gnosticisms. 

Substantialism borrows everywhere — from revelation, 
from gnosticism, from pantheism. In its use of logical 
♦Vol.] pdgeasa. 



SUBSTANTIAUSM. ' 7 5 

analogy" from materialism; and notably from Prof. 
Haeckel in finding analogies where there are none. It 
is sad to see the teaching of logic on the subject of an- 
alogy so perverted by Prof. Ernst Haeckel and Dr. A. 
Wilford Hall. 



N. B. Some of these remarks may seem harsh, but 
when they are compared with the quotations from 
those at whom they are aimed, the harshness will dis- 
appear. 

We invite any one to point out the " many fallacies" 
that a Substantialist finds in this paper. As we lay no 
claim to infallibility, some fallacies may be found by 
friends as w T ell as foes. 




8 c-iati 



<\ 



%r 









J ^v 






•o . . " 









&*± 



..*> 



•^o< 



w 



«S* •" \* .. + °"° *° 



.0^ 



^ 

<* 



**$>. *•,!»* a^" O^ '* M o'' 0' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

r\> i • o, ^ *N *•••/ r> <V Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

► «^ • ^ V *>W|^^'» ^ V^ Treatment Date: Oct. 2004 

: WE%Z « Jl ftT- : *< PreservationTechnologies 

.» ' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

**%3IS)r** 4^ *^i» • ■ ^%*4 ** <* \ 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

^ ♦/Vi* tV vD *o . . * \ -> Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

*<5> n V ,». "** $> "0 \$> (724)779-2111 



w 










•W 

v>^ 
£ ^ 








